Marginalized Neighborhoods and Health Outcomes in Younger Myocardial Infarction Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Neighborhood characteristics may be independently associated with survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Objective: To examine the association of living in a marginalized neighborhood with mortality and care for younger AMI survivors (aged <65 years) in a universal health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based retrospective cohort using clinical and administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. Participants were younger patients hospitalized for their first AMI who received invasive evaluation and survived to 7 days after discharge between April 1, 2010, and March 1, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed between May 27, 2022, and March 31, 2025. Exposures: Neighborhood marginalization, a metric comprising material deprivation, residential instability, and dependency. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause death, all-cause hospitalizations, and subsequent AMIs. Proportional hazards regression models were used to quantify the association of marginalization with outcomes over 3 years. Results: Among 65 464 AMI patients (median age, 56 [IQR, 50-61] years; 22.9% female), increasing neighborhood marginalization was associated with higher rates of mortality beginning 30 days after discharge and persisting over time. At 3 years, mortality rates ranged from 2.2% in the least marginalized neighborhood quintile (Q1) to 5.2% in the most marginalized (Q5). Adjusted hazard ratios for mortality over 3 years of follow-up were significantly higher in patients from marginalized neighborhoods and ranged from 1.13 (95% CI, 0.95-1.35) in Q2 to 1.52 (95% CI, 1.29-1.80) in Q5. Over 1 year, differences were observed between Q1 and Q5 in visits to primary care physicians (Q1, 96.1%; Q5, 91.6%) and cardiologists (Q1, 88.0%; Q5, 75.7%), as well as diagnostic testing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of younger AMI survivors with universal health care, living in marginalized neighborhoods was associated with adverse outcomes. The observed differences in health service utilization among marginalized patients warrant further investigation to better understand the underlying structural and systemic factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".